Silk

Silk was a flop, not the international success its backers had hoped for after the director's The Red Violin made such a splash a decade earlier. It is worthy of attention, in pinpointing some cautionary messages to other would-be Visionary (that recently overworked term) filmmakers.

1. TRAVELOGUE: Film is unfortunately a highly literal, through visuals, medium, and it is easy to become mesmerized by the shots. Mature directors scrupulously avoid this pitfall, but perhaps Canadian director Francois Girard has subconsciously assimilated the approach of Terrence Malick. Like Malick, he only ventures forth from his artistic cave once a decade, and feels compelled to make each shot the most perfect and beautiful of all time. This is not cinema -this is "how I spent my vacation" -a $20,000,000 slide show.

2. FOOLED BY THE RUSHES: It could be a by-product of the far-flung co-production status (Silk is structured officially as a Canadian/Italian/Japanese project, an unusual combo), but the movie displays an age-old problem of Hollywood, caused by over-monitoring of the rushes. Many a stiff, stolid film result has looked "marvelous" in the dailies. Studios traditionally made decisions like director firings or bringing in a troubleshooter to haul in the reins on a project based on the quality of the rushes. This makes sense in a bean-counter universe, but has nothing to do with the ultimate movie, which as Hitchcock noted, is stored in the director's head. Watching Silk I was struck that the rushes coming back from the various locations truly must have looked fabulous, but that is no indicator that they would ultimately amount to anything in a gestalt sense. Only the director and his editors know what will be needed in terms of coverage, and how the pieces might mesh into a whole. It's easy to get bamboozled by striking shots, just as at the other extreme it's easy to assume the worst when a neophyte director falls behind schedule and isn't giving the execs their daily meters of processed celluloid.

3. DISTANCING: Brecht and Godard have long been the inspiration for film directors to keep the audience at a safe distance -break up the naturally hypnotic effect that a movie has for the viewer, which Hitchcock exploited to a fare-thee-well. In Silk, Girard uses the crutch of voice-over narration to sabotage one's involvement in the action/dialog/story. Like Zentropa, another pretentious exercise by a wannabe "visionary" director, the somnolent narration literally puts the viewer to sleep. His insistence on oft-criticized bland American accents for French characters further abstracts the story, and makes it near-impossible to smoothly enter into the life of the protagonists. Low affect is the instruction to lead Michael Pitt and even Alfred Molina, the latter bringing professional life to his rattled off exposition, and even some wit. Keira Knightley gets to actually emote in her patented shy-but-effusive manner, but I noticed the director cutting away from her as quickly as possible, and even though she is the key central figure of the story's romantic theme, her overall screen time is reduced to the bare minimum. The dialog by Girard and Michael Golding is almost all in the form of recitations: never sounding natural or using vernacular. That's as big a mistake as the bland American accents.

4. CRYPTIC: Adapting a novel is difficult; perhaps this is why the Academy gives a separate Oscar category for adaptations as opposed to the Original Screenplay niche for the Woody Allens of the world. Too often a film (or TV) adaptation REQUIRES that the viewer be not just conversant but well-nigh totally immersed in the source work in order to appreciate the film. (I recently watched the British TV series A Dance to the Music of Time, via Netflix, after a marathon reading of all 12 Powell novels it's based upon, and the damn thing would have made no sense whatsoever without having the books fresh in my mind.) For Silk, many basic and virtually all nuanced elements are lost without knowledge of the source, a damning fault. The intended purity of not subtitling the Japanese dialog segments falls squarely into this problem area too. The movie should stand alone, and if it can't, why bother? It's not impossible -everybody's favorite of all-time The Godfather saw Coppola creating a work of art that never requires one to go back and read Mario Puzo's pulp novel.

5. THE PITT FACTOR: Folks love to criticize young Mr. Pitt, an actor who future generations will scratch their heads over: "how did he get into so many films?". Pauly Shore, Phillips Holmes in the '30s, and many 4-F performers like Sonny Tufts and William Prince during WW II come to mind. Following the death of James Dean, for over a decade innumerable folks imitated his breakthrough persona, of which I recall Michael Parks and Christopher Jones becoming the most typecast. Now we have Mr. Pitt, the lookalike thespian doomed to live in the shadow of Leonardo DiCaprio, let alone his equally handsome namesake Brad. What a cross to bear!

6. UNLOCKING THE MYSTERY: I was reminded of Werner Herzog's overlooked classic Heart of Glass while watching Silk. Both films have transcendentally beautiful landscapes. Underneath the main romantic and cross-cultural themes, they have the same core parable: a one-industry community (Glassblowing in Herzog, Silk creation here) poised on the edge of disaster. Herzog hypnotized his cast to get a unique, otherworldly effect. Girard has Pitt & most others sleepwalking, to null effect.

I also can understand why a person may not like this movie. However, if you can truly appreciate the goal and the direction of the director's vision than you should like it. The scenery and music added depth and meaning to the story. I think there should have been Japanese subtitles so as to not lose the audience's attention and interest. I was left wanting more. I don't know if that is a good thing or a bad thing. I wanted the plot to be a bit more "spicy". But i can appreciate the director and writer's vision of the movie. This is a good movie to watch when you want to relax and mellow out. The ending was the best part of the movie. There was a bit of a twist which added meaning and understanding. Even though i wanted things to be a bit more spicy the end of the movie justified the lack of it.

This is a beautiful film.

The story stays very close to the book I had already read twice (around 10 years ago then 6 months ago). The adaptation is faithful to the author, and even if there's not much words, the intensity of the feelings is always present. The actors convey these feelings very well, with deep sensitivity and great sensuality (just watch when Hervé is in the Japanese wooden tub, and the girl pours water on his face and lips with her fingers). The settings and sceneries are overwhelming: there's so much beauty-like the snow covered trees in Japan, the Joncour garden, ... François Girard had already shown how a fantastic Director he is with his 2 previous films, and now with Silk! He has such a strong aesthetic sense, and a great way to direct actors...

This movie tries to be an epic, period piece romantic drama. It has some of the main ingredients that are required to pull this off. There's costumes, travels, some beautiful (that's the only reason I gave it a 2/10) landscape shots, a guy, women, a not-too-subtle score to pull big emotions from us, all are present. But the most important ingredient they forgot: there's no heart. There's no passion. There's no chemistry at all. They even didn't take time to develop the Love between the main characters. Guy sees girl in bar (2 seconds). Then they walk past some flowers. Girl likes flowers. Guy eats a flower. They are in love. Sadly, I do not make this up. It is this shallow. And this is supposed to be the base for the rest of the movie. Well, it's just completely unbelievable. The dialogues are cheesy clichés and completely uninspired ("I will always love you" every time the guy goes on a trip; 4 times?), the acting is borderline amateuristic. Watching a movie can be a wonderful experience, it can draw you in, it can get under your skin, can touch something deep inside. This movie wants to be/ do all of that, but it fails completely. Bad movie making. A waste of time.

This movie was very good. I know a lot of reviewers were bored and didn't like that there wasn't subtitles for the Japanese. Admittedly the issue with the subtitles would have made the movie easier to understand. In the middle of the movie there is some confusion about what exactly has transpired between Pitt and his Japanese contact and why the initial interlude between Pitt and the Japanese concubine occurs in the first place but these don't seem to be so dear to the plot that you can't remain in the dark and still get the point of the movie.

The landscape is breathtaking, the acting was great by every member of the supporting cast. I like Michael Pitt, but it seems like he can only play one character and it's the throaty sensitive guy. I was surprised that Keira Knightley took such a minor role but the punch at the end gives her character quite a bit of intrigue. As always she is wonderful and I liked Alfred Molina as well.

The cinematography was good and understated. The script was simple and it didn't seem like they wasted any words. Quite the opposite in fact.

I understand why others didn't like it but I get the impression that this is due to a lack of patience on their part.

Good movie. Try it out.